Communicated on 12 September 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 32400/12
Oksana DANILINA and Burliyat DANILINA
against Russia
lodged on 30 May 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Ms Oksana Danilina and Ms Burliyat Danilina, are Russian nationals, who were born in 1976 and 1956 respectively and live in Makhachkala, Dagestan. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from Memorial Human Rights Centre, an NGO in Moscow, and Mr P. Leach, a lawyers practising in London.
The applicants are respectively the wife and the mother of Mr Timur Danilin, who was born in 1977.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The circumstances of the caseDisappearance of Mr Timur Danilin
At the material time, the applicants and Timur Danilin lived in Makhachkala, Dagestan.
In the morning on 25 March 2012 the first applicant’s husband (the second applicant’s son), Timur Danilin took the first applicant to work in his VAZ-2109 car with registration number E207OX05. He was supposed to pick her up from work at 1 p.m. that day. However, he did not arrive. The first applicant tried calling him, but to no avail.
In the evening, the first applicant and her relatives started searching for Mr Danilin. At about 10 p.m. the first applicant received a call from unfamiliar number; Timur Danilin said that he had been beaten, his car and mobile phone had been taken away from him and he needed help. Then another man who introduced himself as a police officer from the village of Novolak told the applicant to bring 50,000 roubles (RUB) (about 1,300 euros) to the police station in that village in exchange for Mr Danilin’s release. When the first applicant with about a dozen of her relatives arrived there, the police officers at the police station denied any knowledge of Timur Danilin’s whereabouts and demanded that they returned home or they would be “also detained”.
According to the applicant, several days later they were informed by the residents of Novolak of the following. At about 9.30 p.m. on 25 March 2012 Timur Danilin had been seen, severely beaten, in a courtyard in Lenina Street in Novolak. He had been speaking with Mr A.L., the latter’s mother and elder brother. Then the neighbourhood officer G.A. who had been passing by, asked him about what had happened. Mr Danilin had told him that he had been beaten, and that his car and his phone had been taken away from him.
Officer A.G. had called the police, who had arrived in a few minutes. Officer R.S. and two other police officers from the operational investigations unit (СОГ) had emerged from the police UAZ vehicle. When Timur Danilin had seen the officers, he had tried to run away, but they had opened gunfire threatening to shoot him. Then the officers had forced Mr Danilin into their vehicle and driven off to the Novolak police station. At some point later Timur Danilin was transferred from the Novolak police station to the Counterterrorism Centre in Khasavyurt.
On 29 March 2012 the investigators of the criminal case opened into Mr Danilin’s abduction informed the applicants that his car had been found abandoned in Akushinskogo Street in Makhachkala. On 30 May 2012, the car was returned to the applicants.Official investigation into the abduction
On 26 March 2012 the first applicant complained to the police and the Dagestan Department of the Federal Security Service (FSB) of Timur Danilin’s abduction by the police officers.
Following a preliminary examination, on 12 April 2012 the Khasavyurt Department of the Investigative Committee (the Investigative Committee) opened a criminal case under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).
On 16 April 2012 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. In her statement to the investigators, she alleged the involvement of the police in the beating and the abduction of Timur Danilin.
On 7 May 2012 the first applicant received a letter from the Internal Investigations Department of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior which stated that they “were verifying the involvement of the neighbourhood police officer G.A. in the disappearance of Mr Danilin.”
From the documents submitted it transpires that the investigation is still pending and the whereabouts of Mr Danilin have not been established.
COMPLAINTS
Without invoking the relevant provision of the Convention, the applicants complain about the disappearance of Mr Timur Danilin as a result of actions of the police officers and of the failure of the domestic authorities to effectively investigate the matter.
Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicants complain that Timur Danilin was subjected to torture by the police officers who had abducted him.
Under the same provision of the Convention, the applicants complain that they suffer severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of Timur Danilin’s abduction and his subsequent disappearance and the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation thereof.
Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complain about unlawfulness of Timur Danilin’s detention by the police and under Article 13 of the Convention, they allege lack of effective remedies against that violation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants made out prima facie cases that Mr Timur Danilin disappeared as a result of State servicemen’s actions? If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in respect of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants’ relative’s disappearance (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, §§ 181-84, ECHR 2009, and Tanış and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005–VIII)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants’ submissions that State agents were involved in Mr Timur Danilin’s disappearance by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing by other means a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events?
2. Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of Mr Timur Danilin? Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), has the investigation by the domestic authorities been sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?
3. Was Mr Timur Danilin subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation into the alleged ill‑treatment conducted by the domestic authorities compatible with guarantees of Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their husband and son and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the matter been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants?
5. Was Mr Timur Danilin deprived of his liberty, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If such detention took place, was it in compliance with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1 – 5 of the Convention?
6. Have the applicants had at their disposal effective domestic remedies in relation to the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
7. The Government are requested to submit copies of the entire preliminary inquiry file and a copy of the entire investigation file in the criminal case instituted in relation to the disappearance (murder) of Mr Timur Danilin. They are also invited to include a list of steps, in chronological order, reflecting the actions taken by the authorities in the criminal investigation to date.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy